629 F.3d 25
1st Cir.2010Background
- Meléndez, an ROTC officer, was assaulted during an April 30, 2001 protest at the UPR-RP campus; university non-confrontation policy blocked PRPD intervention.
- Unwritten NCP in 2001 prohibited PRPD entry to campus without university authorization, amid ongoing ROTC tensions and protests.
- Meléndez sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming due process and equal protection violations and asserted state-law claims; district court later granted summary judgment on federal claims and dismissed state-law claims for lack of diversity.
- Defendants allegedly engaged in discovery misconduct; Meléndez sought Rule 37 sanctions and relief, which the district court denied.
- Post-discovery, the court ruled there was no diversity jurisdiction; Meléndez was found not to be a Texas domiciliary as of April 2002, leading to dismissal of state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in denying Rule 37 sanctions | Meléndez asserts discovery misconduct warranted sanctions. | No applicable order to compel and sanctions inappropriate. | No abuse; absence of an order to compel discovery precludes sanctions. |
| Whether district court should have set aside summary judgment due to discovery issues | Discovery delay prevented adequate opposition to summary judgment. | Rule 56(d) framework not met; no reversible error. | No reversible error; specific Rule 56(f) framework not satisfied. |
| Whether the substantive due process claim against officials is barred by qualified immunity | Defendants violated Meléndez’s right to protection from danger on campus. | Officials did not violate clearly established rights; qualified immunity applies. | Affirmed qualified-immunity; conduct not clearly unlawful. |
| Whether Meléndez’s equal protection claim withstands qualified immunity analysis | Disparate treatment of ROTC members violated equal protection. | No evidence of discriminatory intent; neutral, non-discriminatory policy. | Affirmed qualified immunity; no purposeful discrimination shown. |
| Whether USERRA predicate claim could support a §1983 claim | Protection against assault constitutes a USERRA “benefit of employment.” | USERRA protection does not apply as charged here; not a | Rejected; no USERRA-based §1983 claim since no employment-benefit linkage shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 F.3d 189 (U.S. 1989) (failure to protect not a due-process violation absent special relationship)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis (clarity first post-Pearson))
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (overruled strict Saucier sequencing; allows judgment on alternative ground)
- Hayden v. Grayson, 134 F.3d 449 (1st Cir. 1998) (neutral nonintervention policy cannot on its own violate equal protection)
- Ramos-Piñero v. Puerto Rico, 453 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference; balancing competing interests in triage)
- Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2005) (state-created danger and 'shock the conscience' standards)
- Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1992) (domicile and residence considerations in diversity analysis)
- Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2000) (allowing reversal for incomplete discovery under certain circumstances)